Re: Why Peter Olcott is both right and wrong

Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> writes:

the truth is pathlogical input is undecidable:

No input[1] is undecidable.

that part Turing et al got right.

Turing never said that there are undecidable inputs[2].

Maybe "truth", "pathological", "input" and "undecidable" have special
Flibble meanings.  I'm willing to accept that "the" and "is" have the
usual semantics.

[1] By input I mean an instance of the halting problem -- a string of
    symbols representing (a) an encoded TM (a number is Turing's paper)
    and (b) the initial tape contents.

[2] In the original paper, he never uses the words "input" or
    "decidable".  Instead, he uses other words, but nowhere is there any
    remark that is even close to meaning what you say.

--
Ben.